From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] IB/srp: Make queue size configurable Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:25:28 +0200 Message-ID: <523714D8.3020104@acm.org> References: <521363EA.8080906@acm.org> <52136609.3090406@acm.org> <1378782080.3794.6.camel@feather.ornl.gov> <522F5A81.8040101@acm.org> <1378937796.6649.5.camel@haswell.thedillows.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1378937796.6649.5.camel-a7a0dvSY7KqLUyTwlgNVppKKF0rrzTr+@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: David Dillow Cc: David Dillow , Roland Dreier , Vu Pham , Sebastian Riemer , linux-rdma , Konrad Grzybowski List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 09/12/13 00:16, David Dillow wrote: > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 19:44 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> If this name was not yet in use in any interface that is visible in user >> space, I would agree that we should come up with a better name. However, >> the SCSI mid-layer already uses that name today to export the queue >> size. To me this looks like a good reason to use the name "can_queue" ? >> An example: >> >> $ cat /sys/class/scsi_host/host93/can_queue >> 62 > > Yes, I know it has been used before, but I'm torn between not furthering > a bad naming choice and consistency. Foolish consistency and all that... > > I really don't like "can_queue", but I'll not complain if Roland decides > to take it as-is. The merge window has been closed early which means that I'll have to resend this patch series anyway. How about using the name "queue_size" instead ? Bart. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html